a. None has a right to waste time of the Court by filing frivolous petitions.

b. Litigants owe duty to approach Court with clean hand, clean mind, clean heart and with clean objectives.

c. Persons filing vexatious petitions to gain cheap advantage to be dealt with severely by imposing exemplary costs.

COMMON ORDER : The petitioner in the above cases is A-1 among three accused in E.O.C.C. No.443 of 2004 (Old E.O.C.C. No.1164 of 1994), taken on file by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai, for the offence punishable under Section-8(1) read with 56(1)(i) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (in short ‘FERA’).

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 15.07.1993, the Enforcement Authorities conducted search at the residence of the petitioner/accused and foreign currencies to the value of crores of rupees came to be seized in the presence of two independent witnesses; that, on interrogation, the petitioner stated that his friend by name Haja Alauddin, who is residing at Singapore, sent gold and silver through some passengers from Singapore to Madras to the petitioner, who, in turn, on the instruction of the said Alauddin, sold the same to A-2 and A-3 and converted the sale proceeds into foreign currencies; that the currencies seized were of various denominations of different countries and a portion thereof was despatched to Alauddin and the balance retained by the petitioner at his residence; that though he confessed to the offence committed by him, after release on bail, he retracted the confession statements through letters and the retraction letters of the accused were properly replied by the enforcement authorities; that A-2 pleaded guilty and he was convicted by the trial judge; that A-3 in the case is absconding, hence, the case against him had been split up and he is declared as a ‘proclaimed offender’; that, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, trial had been taken up in which 6 witnesses were examined on the side of the prosecution, 25 documents marked and after questioning the accused, the case was posted for defence examination; and that, in such circumstances, the petitioner preferred a petition under Section 247 Cr.P.C. before the trial court. Since the attention of this Court is very much drawn to the said petition in M.P. No.1635/2008, filed before the trial court, with reference to the grounds on which the prayer has been made, the contents thereof are extracted below:-

“ 1. The petitioner / accused humbly submits that the following persons are to be examined by the defence as defence witnesses.

a) Shri. P.Shridhar Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about search statements of A1 and A2 and other facts

b) Shri. V.Subramanian Assistant Director Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about search at shop premises of A3 Ratna Mohammed and other facts.

c) Shri. A.K.Banerjee Deputy Director Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about the retracted statements of A1 and other facts

d) Shri.D.K.Kayal Chief Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about the filing of complaints and other facts

e) Shri.S.S.Ranjhen Special Director of Enforcement Enforcement Directorate New Delhi to speak about the adjudication notices under Section 51 FERA and other facts.

f) Shri.R.Mohandoss, Deputy Director, E.D., Chennai-6, to speak about the reply given to the accused A1 for his representation under right to information Act.

g) Shri.Sharathkumar Assistant Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about to disprove the search and recovery and other facts.

h) Shri A.K.Panda Assistant Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about to disprove the search and recovery and other facts.

i) Shri. Gopal Assistant Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai to speak about the search conducted at Police computer Wing Chennai

j) Mr.Perumalsamy Inspector General of Police re